I also believe that Mill would want them to speak out their opinion, no matter how crazy they may seem. If they speak out to the public, then others could speak back to them and give them feedback that might help them change their mind. Mill has enough faith in people that they would not be won over by these groups, and that the chance that the groups might have a change of heart is high once they speak to others about the situation and see their views.

I agree with the general consensus so far the limiting 'weird' groups access to public debate is very harmful as mill put it to both the heretics and to society at large. truth cannot be put down, and if there is truth in a groups argument then they should not a) be afraid to appeal to the general public because truth is appealing, and b) be represtricted from the public forum because if there is no truth to what they are saying then the public has nothing to hear for every one else will recognize them for the crazies that they are.

I believe that Mill would want them to come out and discuss their beliefs and ideas publicly. although I would prefer to not listen to their point of view I would rather them come out and discuss it publicly than to allow it to incubate and allow them to feed on their own ignorance. The reason many of these groups are around is because instead of allowing and encouraging them to come out and publicly express their opinions, we as a society believe in the "out of sight out of mind" kind of phylosophy, we think that the less people are exposed to a subject the better (ignorance is blissful). The media is partly to blame for this as well, because if these people were allowed to express their opinion in a very public arena they might pick up some followers but if they are as wrong as I believe NAMBLA to be, they might just realize how crazy their ideas are and forget about the whole thing but the media and society as a whole think that somehow NAMBLA, if allowed to speak publicly, would end up convincing us of the beauty behind man/boy love. The restrictions that they have in the public arena are not present on the internet which is why you can mainly find these groups here, because although the internet may seem like a public place, it is fairly private and as many of you mentioned, unless you are looking for something in particular it is very dificult to come across it on the internet.

Mill would be thrilled to have NAMBLA, Scientologists, faithful "Creativity" members and whoever else might like to join the public discussion do so, because he conceives certain parameters on this open discussion. His point regarding infallibility is strong and (I think) at this point uncontroversial, but his expectations for the public sphere might be. He expects truth to be picked up on by wiser men, and for this to happen repeatedly in spite of persecution which foils each individual attempt at disseminating this newly discovered viewpoint. But he seems to offer no guarantee that the side of the truth which the public is most desparately wanting, although it may emerge from time to time, will ever successfully influence the public's understanding; instead he simply awaits when we will collectively throw off our mental chains, as has happened during rare revolutionary periods, and then have truth prevail through rational argument. For that is what is necessary -- argument between deeply interested opponents on any given issue, using rationality and being willing to concede fallibility when proven wrong. But as he notes in another place, the most widely accepted opinions tend to dry up and become crusts over our minds that limit its absorbancy. And as a rule, the much-needed side of the truth is picked up and defended by vibrant and persistent minorities, against an obstinate majority which will defend itself through persecution, breaking the rules of rationality (by pandering appeals to tradition and such), and whatever else it takes. In the absence of such coercion, maybe good contrary opinions will sometimes be absorbed into mainstream understanding. But to expect society to sit passively while it is being refuted is itself unreasonable, and this might have some stormy implications for liberalism.

The idea that a society can eventually sift the truth out of the sand because it's the only thing not falling through the pan is interesting in that it conflates the notions of what is true and what is popular--though it has seemingly proved effective (I mean, what happened to slavery?). But Mill's 'truth' is certainly not the same one Socrates mashed into his friends' ears. It tells us that slavery is bad not because it disregarded virtue but rather because it was overthrown. Mill's arguing closer to Cicero and Friends in that the concept which withstands attempts to discard it repeatedly is sometimes called 'tradition.' He also compares to the civic humanists in that giving voice to fringe groups allows us to examine all possible sides. In a way, he's articulating something buried deep in Antonius' argument when he says that ideas must be brought into the public eye to be questioned. Except Mill isn't a pandering whore--or a relativist. He's acknowledging that there is probably one idea that is closest to the truth, but we should allow as many ideas as possible to pass through the filter so that that one idea doesn't get squelched prematurely. Another slight difference from civic humanism--the infallibility argument, as applied on p. 21, lets Mill pick at governments that govern in the interest of preserving tradition. A false dichotomy? Maybe...

So would Mill agree with Mormonism being the fastest-growing religion in America? I think that's an interesting case because the Mormons don't necessarily put it all on the table. Their public face generally seems to exclude the parts about Jesus coming to America and every man getting to rule a planet after he dies and the creepy special undergarments. So when Mill calls for a voice to every group, his condition is probably that the group is represented honestly...no propaganda. It's hard to tear something down if you can't prove it exists. No offense to any Mormons in the class.

I think Mill advocates free and open debate so that everyone in society can benefit from it. I think Mill is kind of utilitarian in this sense. He believes that eventually, if everyone shares their opinion, the truth will surface and the truth will prevail, and it will be useful insofar as it benefits society as a whole. I generally agree with Mill on this point. Let NAMBLA preach their man-boy lovin' all they want; even if they manage to convert a few people, the majority of the population will either ignore them or ridicule them. Their right to free and open discussion is what's important.

As for the NAMBLA/Church of the Creator example--let's consider something else. It's possible that Planned Parenthood could offend someone more than the neo-Nazi Church of the Creator offends me. Does that mean that Planned Parenthood should keep its pro-choice opinions to itself? I don't think so. And the Church of the Creator shouldn't have to, either. Allowing these groups to share their opinions is not detrimental to society.

I also hate to say this but I do think that Mill would want NAMBLA and the Church of the Creator to make a genuine public argument. I think Mill has enough faith in people that if this stuff were to get out in the public that people would go against their opinions, even if they did pick up a few supporters. However, I do not think that the discussions on the internet are quite what Mill had in mind. I'm sure there a tons of people out there that have no idea what NAMBLA or the Church of the Creator are even though it is on the internet. I'm assuming Mill was more referring to the media when he meant an open public discussion. I liked the comment above about how noone would find this on the internet unless they were interested in it and looked it up and I don't personally know anyone who would look for either topic on the internet. If it were in the mainstream media though I think more people would hear about it and because they are both so controversial I think people would become active in suppressing these ideas, which I think is what Mills was talking about.

As much as I disagree with their doctrine, I would have to go with yes… yes, Mill would want these people to have free and open discussion with people of a non-like mind. Perhaps they would gain a few followers, perhaps the rest of the white race would hop on board, but that is no reason for any individual or society to ban the group’s right to free speech in a public setting. In a liberal point of view, they are fully allowed to express their ideals, wear their symbols and what ever else they can think up, as long as they do not impose on another person’s liberty (this also being a minority’s right to not live in fear). Mill also states that “though the silenced opinion be an error, it may and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied” (50). Now while this may be an extreme stretch for the example given of the white supremacy group. I have to confess that I had never heard of them before today and don’t know much more than what was in the wikipedia article, so I have no idea if they’re arguments do or do not retain any truth. I do think, however, that this belief of a ‘shred of truth’ within both (or all) sides of opposing opinions is a good one. Take for example abortion; a largely debated and very controversial topic with wildly opposing opinions. I, myself, am pro-choice on the whole, but I do think that partial birth abortion is crossing the line. However, I would never tell another woman what she could and could not do with her own body. I am able to see that both arguments have some truth to them, and without discussing every possible opinion, I wouldn’t be able to form a reason or respect for what I, or the opposing peoples, believe in.
So, do I really want this group making a genuinely public argument? No, not really, but I don’t have the right to restrain them, at least not until they infringe upon another person’s liberty. And the only reason I have the feelings I do toward the idea of the group sustaining public debate in the first place, is because in the past they have trampled on the liberties of the minorities/religious groups in which they direct so much hate. The only thing I reserve the right to do is speak up in their opposition. Returning to the quote Prof Longaker used in the prompt “The real advantage which truth has consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of the ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favorable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such a head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it” (p. 28). Perhaps this idea could be applied to the idea of peace and social equality amongst the races of the world. The issues must be debated, and the truth sought before it can be made strong enough in the minds of all people that nothing could suppress it.
amy_lee

Initially when I tried to think of another organization ridden with controversy for their message like NAMBLA and racial-supremacy groups like those suggested in the topic. As I sat trying to ‘google’ a topic worth discussion I thought about some of the common features which both help and inhibit the search for close-minded discussions. For one, the internet allows so much freedom that if you the searcher are not a frequent visitor of an abnormal group of social propaganda or radical philosophy like those mentioned, your search is more difficult because you don’t know what too look for – how can you find something you don’t know you are looking for. So if we fail to find these special interest groups because we aren’t aware of their message, why aren’t we aware of them and what are we aware of? The media plays a major part in setting the agenda of the nation, subsequently creating a homogenous majority mindset which works to keep some issues in the dark and others in the forefront. For example, the first time I heard of NAMBLA was on the ‘O’Reilly Factor’ in Bill O’Reilly’s talking points. O’Reilly was ridiculing the credibility of the ACLU for defending NAMBLA. Personally not a fan of O’Reilly, I agreed with his sentiments at the time because I find NAMBLA repulsive; however, after researching more about the case, I found that the ACLU was defending NAMBLA in a case about whether or not they could hand out pamphlets and other printed information about their organization. The power of the American media is so vast because they are competitors whom influence each other. We have a vast number of American media outlets in print, multimedia, and broadcast television, but most of them are telling the exact same stories. Unless you are conscious of the debate, criticism and internal issues within the American medium as a whole, you are likely to take in your dose of news to stay informed without questioning what is being said. NAMBLA and radical racial organizations are hardly ever in the media for negative incidents. Public opinion of these organizations is shaped in the media by what is told about them (which is usually negative); therefore debate is already disabled before it is able to begin. This effects discussions about organizations like NAMBLA because a person searching the internet is not going to look for something that does not interest them nor will they want to know more about something they have already formed an opinion on. Whether this is their own opinion or society or the media, people are closed-minded to what they think they know. Mill talks about these assertions of society which remain unquestioned because “they are certain that they are certain.” Discussions on smaller groups like NAMBLA and aren’t able to be free as Mill would like because we are dispensed a controlled message from a unilateral media agenda as well as the long standing norms of society (which could also be thought to play puppeteer to what is in the media).

The small like-minded group of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe serves to work towards legalizing prostitution and giving them equitable social and governmental treatment as any other profession. This organization also held its first conference and drafted the Sex Worker Manifesto which outlines varying issues such as their demands to remove the stigma of their profession through education, create better working environments by offering mandatory heath check-ups and services. Although I am sure that women who are sex workers are the most common visitors of the website, but upon more research I found that most of the argument on this subject was separate between writings from people who gave economic reasons that prostitution should be legalized versus the moral reasons people wanted to keep this as a punishable act.

I think in this case Mill would agree with this type of argument because prostitution is a lively and undying industry. Centuries of disapproval from society as well as imposing laws to prohibit sex for money, have still not weeded it out and now that some countries have legalized it (Netherlands). Women have more control over their lives and their bodies than ever before: the only objections are the moral issues people raise. Yet if this is an industry that is still successful and brings in a good profit, and there is no shortage of workers, why are we still holding back? The interests of opening up the prostitution industry as a legal profession poses vital questions to the government and the increase in money they could take in by taxing these businesses. Now that men can find women who will have sex with them for money without being prosecuted, this could possibly decrease rapes since men have “a sure thing” to go to if they want sex. On the other hand, making prostitution a legal business could deteriorate the family because men would have easy access to stray from their marriage. From the social reverberations to the economic growth it could bring, prostitution is a legitimate argument that could be made in the public. Some may see it as spreading a message that prostitution is ok, but Mill’s whole argument is that if prostitution is not ok, then the truth will come forth.

In the case of NAMBLA, their interest are only self-motivated and do not enhance society in one way or another but they just want the right to legally be pedophiles and offering society nothing more than the satisfaction of allowing them to finally do what they want to do without repercussions.

Ultimately, I think Mill wants to dissolve the influence of moral doctrines from religious institutions like Christianity, but in doing this he also dissolves a lot of truths that we base right, wrong, and truth on. Whether we like it or not, Christian ideals have been the rule of thumb in society and much of our understanding of right and wrong rest on those ideals. Mill says the truth should come forth when we debate opinions set forth by groups like white supremacist advocating intolerance; however, if we take these religious doctrines out of the equation and have no base for equality or tolerance, what then is the argument based on? True enough we go talk about the inaccuracy of eugenics and what genetics has shown us about race and “innate abilities,” but why is equality important if “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has no weight?